|
|
#51
07-03-2007, 08:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
Why are there so many people claiming that Libby simply failed to remember something? Obviously, the jury did not agree and thought the lack of memory claim was a crock.
|
|
#52
07-03-2007, 08:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
[ QUOTE ]
Why are there so many people claiming that Libby simply failed to remember something? Obviously, the jury did not agree and thought the lack of memory claim was a crock. [/ QUOTE ] Brilliant arguement....juries are always correct. OJ, Blake, hell libs think 70 percent of convicted murderers didnt do it.
|
|
#53
07-03-2007, 08:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
The real problem is the egos of our special prosecutors and our misplaced expectations of them.
We should only appoint prosecutors who are willing to let the facts on the claimed crimes drive their actions. Prosecutors feel compelled to produce a scalp to prove that their efforts were worth the cost and time. A truly good prosecutor should be happy if he finds no crime was committed, damn the cost and time involved. Ken Starr should have said, "I investigated whitewater and found no crime, I investigated the Foster suicide and found no crime. I've spent millions of government money and years of time investigating, but the facts dictate that I prosecute no one." Fitzgerald should have said, "I investigated the Plame name leaking and found the leak was not from the whitehouse but from a critic of the whitehouse Richard Armitage. I've spent millions of government money and years of time investigating, but the facts dictate that I prosecute no one." Sadly, we don't have special prosecutors who are willing to do the right thing and just follow the facts on the underlying cases that they are given.
|
|
#54
07-03-2007, 08:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why are there so many people claiming that Libby simply failed to remember something? Obviously, the jury did not agree and thought the lack of memory claim was a crock. [/ QUOTE ] Brilliant arguement....juries are always correct. [/ QUOTE ] Were you there in the courtroom? Did you read the transcripts? What makes you so knowledgeable about the case as to assume the jury got it wrong? Or do you just assume you know better than the jury when the verdict does not fit neatly into your political views?
|
|
#56
07-03-2007, 09:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
[ QUOTE ]
I'm actually finding it hilarious how all the left wingers are such zealots for law and order. It would be interesting to note how they felt about illegals doing jail time in the United States. [/ QUOTE ] That's easy. As a general matter, illegals should absolutely do all the jail time that the law prescribes for the crimes they commit. So you you or I, or anyone else. You apparently believe that different rules apply to white republicans. Quelle suprise! [ QUOTE ] One last thought from me on this [/ QUOTE ] I doubt it.
|
|
#58
07-03-2007, 09:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
The sentence was commuted and not pardoned. Does this mean that George Bush believes that Scooter Libby is, in fact, guilty of a crime? In his statement he said that he wanted to respect the jury's verdict but thought the fact that Judge Walton (whom he appointed to burnish his tough on crime credentials) was too harsh in going beyond the parole board's recommendation. If this is the case, why not commute 12 months of the sentence and reduce it to 18 months which is squarely in the range suggested by the board.
Does he believe that lying to a grand jury and obstruction are crimes that should not require jail time? Will he be commuting the sentence of others who did the same thing or is it only OK if it was done in the course of working for his administration? To me, this is the death knell for the law and order conservative.
|
|
#60
07-03-2007, 10:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Why are there so many people claiming that Libby simply failed to remember something? Obviously, the jury did not agree and thought the lack of memory claim was a crock. [/ QUOTE ] Brilliant arguement....juries are always correct. [/ QUOTE ] Were you there in the courtroom? Did you read the transcripts? What makes you so knowledgeable about the case as to assume the jury got it wrong? Or do you just assume you know better than the jury when the verdict does not fit neatly into your political views? [/ QUOTE ] Was I in the courtroom? No. Just as you werent either I assume, not sure what your point there was....You are allowed an opinion and I am not? I do have the common sense however to know that since Libby was not the source of the leak, and the source was known....going after him is not the right thing to do. One look at what happened here and why would anyone talk to anyone regarding witnessing or knowing anything about a possible crime. One misstatement even accidental, one fact you have wrong, one conversation you forget about...and whammo....you goin to jail. really nothing to do with political views here
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
